Next RIGHT TO LAUGH -- A NIGHT OF CONSERVATIVE COMEDY: April 21st! Put it on your calendar now!
My new talk to the Heritage Foundation at Heritage.org. Also available at popmodal.com.
CHECK OUT MY OTHER WRITING AT: BIG HOLLYWOOD (www.bighollywood.breitbart.com) and Regular Folks United (www.regularfolksunited.com)

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

Last Night's Election Postmortem

There is good news for Republicans in last night's results: Barack Obama failed to get a mandate for radical change. Despite polls showing him up by as many as 13 points on the eve of the election, Mr. Obama was able to garner barely 52 out of every one hundred votes cast.

This bare majority came only as Obama benefited from a near perfect storm of advantages that, had his message and policy proposals been more in line with the American people, should have seen a far more substantial tally for the now President-elect. Few would argue other than that Obama is one of the most charismatic figures and greatest orators of our time. This pose and prose was in contrast to his opponent, a man physically deformed by years of torture and oratorically on par with driftwood. John McCain is a great man, he was just never a good candidate.

In fact, McCain was a singularly bad candidate who, out of what I believe was a misguided sense of "statesmanship" and honor, refused to challenge his opponent on matters vital to his victory and, sadly, even more vital to the protection of this nation. McCain's failure to make Obama's twenty years at the knee of his mentor, Jeremiah Wright, a central issue of the campaign (and similar failures to make clear Obama's other nefarious collaborators) allowed Obama to sell with great charm and flowing rhetoric policies that sounded good but were, in reality, the very opposite of what he believes, spent his life promoting and will now seek to make the law of the land from his position as the most powerful man in the world.

Finally, the razor-thin margin of victory came only through the unprecedented and unconscionable wholesale rejection of even the pretense of journalistic standards and personal integrity from a rapidly dying Old Media that sees in Obama a chance to elevate their coideologist to power and, in turn, perhaps have their industry rescued by an Obama administration happy to stifle their competition in talk radio and the Internet.

The bottom line, however, is that the nation and the world is now stuck with a soon-to-be-President Obama. Further, some of the obstacles and challenges that allowed this to happen are only going to get worse in the next few years as the Democrats work to undermine free speech and place other barriers in the way of getting the truth to the people. This will likely start with the Pelosi-Reid Congress advancing the Orwellian-named "Fairness Doctrine" which, they hope, will destroy the voice of opposition in broadcast radio. Meanwhile, the Old Media, flush with the power of having elevated their idol to power, is not likely to return to the standards they rejected over the past many years. This media sees themselves as anointed and elite, their job not to report to the people but to control those "racists" and "dolts" who, to borrow a word from their leader, "cling" to their deepest beliefs and constitutional rights out of "bitterness" and bigotry, by parsing out information that elevates only those who think like they do to positions of power. Rapidly dwindling respect and circulation will not slow their efforts as their sense of elitism and disdain for their fellow Americans -- the folks of "Kansas" whom they see as having "something the matter" with them -- sees their efforts as a righteous crusade, one made only more fun and self-satisfying by the honors they bestow upon each other not for the greatness of their accomplishment but for the degree to which it services "the cause." To this group -- like their brethren in the Hollywood Hills -- the failure of their product is seen as a badge of honor for popular is the opposite of elite.

Still, we Republicans can take from the paltry advantage "won" by the Democrat Party standard bearer that America remains center-right and our return to governance in short time is very possible -- even likely. To regain the confidence of the people we need to return to the message and policies that saw the American people elect us in the first place. Beliefs and policies that they support and share. Being Democrat-light out of a sense that the populace has moved left is a wholesale and dangerous misreading of this election. We will have more charismatic candidates down-the-line, we will redouble our efforts to get out a message doubly difficult to get out because of Democrat legislation likely to come, and, because we have the power of truth and right on our side, we can go into 2010 not dispirited but rejuvenated, not resigned but rededicated to our purpose and our cause, knowing that 2008 was not so much a mandate for the left but a wake-up call to the right.

51 comments:

...because we have the power of truth and right on our side, we can go into 2010 not dispirited but rejuvenated, not resigned but rededicated to our purpose and our cause...

A thousand times, Amen.

Thank you, Evan. I do not relish the position that Reagan conservatism finds itself right now, but I'd be honored to fight alongside you, Jonah Goldberg, Mark Steyn, and the rest of our merry band of happy warriors.

"Know Thine Enemy" is such a wise adage. So I make a point of keeping track of the private rantings of right-wing whack-jobs (copyright: Senior McCain adviser) such as Ann Coulter and Dick Morris.

You know the rats are fleeing the rapidly sinking ship when you discover that BOTH of them are now trying to profit from the impending tsunami that threatens to blow away the gossamer-thin tissue of conservative ideology that has paralyzed and traduced the nation for 8 years.

Today I received begging letters - dressed up as "Promotional Opportunities" encouraging me to sign up subscriptions with a couple of financial medicine men - quack doctors peddling colored water that will protect your money in the event of an Obama victory and massive congressional gains by the Democrats.

According to Coulter:

This could be your last chance to "Obama-Proof" your portfolio before the coming November 4th elections. I urge you to read my letter below... "Obama-Proofing" the Ann Coulter Way.She goes on to shill for "My friend Dr. Mark Skousen" who has "just identified 7 'Obama-Proof' investments to help you survive -- and thrive -- if and when "The One We Have Been Waiting For" ascends to the presidency." And yes - you guessed it - ever-considerate Ann provides a link to the good "doctor"'s website - which doubtlessly kicks-back a few shekels to the Ann Coulter Peroxide & Botox Fund.

Not to be out-done by Ann shilling her personal quack - up pops Dick Morris (surely Bill Clinton is more ashamed of his dalliance with Dick than any of his flings with other women - who for better or worse were not whores. Whereas...) Dick doesn't have a peroxide or Botox habit. But he does need a minimum of 18,000 calories a day to prevent him fading away into a svelte clone of Rush Limbaugh. So to feed his habit - he is out shilling for his own financial shaman.

Dick's letter is headlined:

If Obama Wins, One Thing is Certain -- For Your Investments...There then follows an impassioned plea that you sign up with one Nicholas Vardy - who doesn't have that comforting "doctor" prefix - the sort of word that makes people thing that an aging shrew called Laura Schlessinger whose sole entitlement to the prefix "doctor" stems from a 1974 dissertation she submitted on the effects of insulin on rats - gives her some kind of credibility in anything other than rat piss.

Anyhow - according to the aptly-named Dick - Vardy is peddling the same sort of snake oil as Ann's quack.

Interestingly, neither Ann nor Dick claim to know what they are talking about:

Coulter: "What's his secret? Well, if I knew, I'd be an investment advisor myself."Morris: "How does Nicholas Vardy do it? If I knew, I'd be in his business, not mine"However the bloated Morris is marginally less disingenuous than cunning Coulter. While Ann "butter wouldn't melt between my thighs" acts all coy and innocent - never revealing that she is on a cut of every bottle of snake oil you purchase - Big Dick steps up to the confessional plate with one of those lines proffered by "I have one just like that at home myself" salesmen everywhere

Morris: "Full disclosure: I receive a percentage of each subscription sold, but even if I didn't, I'd want you to know about this amazing service."So we have the sight of these two appalling apologists for the neo-con-trick of the past eight years already resigned to the end of this particular disastrous era reduced to scrabbling like "mongrels who ain't got a penny - sniffing for tidbits like you on the ground" (thank you old pal Bernie for the perfect line!)

To improve your blog, why not delete any anonymous comments. Make the anonymous get a google/blogger identity which may be in fact anonymous but at least lurkers would know that the post came from a specific anonymous coward.

Gee isn't great see how even though Obama hasn't even taken the oath of office yet and his presidency is already bringing the country together?

And "I said"...thank you for illustrating that point. Just a quick question for you, how does it feel to be complete and total sucker? I mean if an amature like Obama can fool you, how often do you get taken? I image a lot. To ease the blow of your massive stupidity and gullibility I hear that they've just restocked the Kool Aid. More ice?

A reading from the 1st book of Obama:

When his supporter were asked if they could actually vote for a man of such limited experience with such a liberal voting record and who has questionable relationships with nefarious individuals, they shouted in one voice without hesitation “yes we can.”

--- what a bunch of easily led push overs. It's like leading cattle to the slaughter house.

Dearist Midnite --- funny how you call this little victory a "landslide". I guess it's typical for liberals to forget America's history, but who can blame them when they spend all their time trying to rewrite it. But since you need a lesson, Reagan won in two LANDSLIDE victories, a huge win in 1980 and an even bigger one in 1984. Old tricky Dick Nixon won in bigger "landslide" than this when he was up for reelection in 1972.

And midnite - with freaks like you imbedded in the Dems it's legacy of being a 2nd rate party with no class will always be assured. Keep proving me right with every vile comment you post. Keep proving exactly the type of hate and low life, low class, divisive, vitriolic, hatemongers you truly are. What's that, no intellgent retort? No facts to back up your claims, just anger, hate and rage? Yeah that's typical because even in this the weakest of victories, when all the country is voting out Bush and not voting in Obama, you still can't be gracious. You still aren't a sportsman, you have zero class. You and all the rest of your ilk are just punks whose lives are so empty and so lacking in anything resembling a meaning that you need to bask in the accomplishments of others. Everyone else that reads this blog take a good look at midnite - they represent the lowest common denominator and are the embodiment of the average Obama supporter. Congrats if you voted for Obama, you're now in league with someone like midnite. I bet they make you really proud, huh?

Since so much of your blog has been given over to demonizing the other side, physician, heal thyself. Would you really call some of the things- not all, but some- of the things you've said on this blog as "gracious"?

When Sayet, someone who makes a living demonizing the other side, calling them stupid, calling them anti-American, complains that someone isn't being "gracious" enough, I'm not sure how his head doesn't explode from the sheer hypocrisy.

Here's the deal, Kurt, you fucking moron...if Sayet started deleting the anon posts he'd have to delete those three letters he just wrote defending himself...haha

This foul thing from hell can't sit down to a keyboard without libeling liberals as pure evil every time...and the yellow ape wants us to be gracious and seek unity?!! I want no unity with his ILKY ILKNESS...just beat him into a corner and leave him there.

If you want to talk about squeakers, how about Al Gore winning the popular vote and the last Bush election ...another squeaker. And you know, this clown thought GW had a real mandate.

Then he wants to tell us about Raygun? More of his lying garbage. If Reagan's 1980 victory was an avalanche, I'm Wilt Chamberlain. Ron got 50.7 percent of the popular vote, which is nothing compared to the landslide champs: LBJ in 1964 (61.0 percent), FDR in 1936 (60.8 percent).

Since only 53.9 percent of the voting-age population actually voted in 1980 (the lowest percentage since 1948), Ron got a scant 27.3 percent of the eligible vote, which is pretty terrible. Of the 40 elections held since 1824 (popular vote totals prior to that time are unavailable), Ron comes in 34th in percentage of eligible vote received, beating out only Carter, Nixon (in 1968), Truman, Coolidge, Wilson, and John Quincy Adams (who had an unbelievably crappy 8.2 percent in 1824--but more on this anon).

"Everyone else that reads this blog take a good look at midnite - they represent the lowest common denominator and are the embodiment of the average Obama supporter. Congrats if you voted for Obama, you're now in league with someone like midnite."

Yup. That asshole now feels "mandated" (when he and the others in the base would've cost Obama the election if they didn't hide anonymously in the blogosphere).

Evan still hasn't learned the function an executioner serves for society. As a real conservative, Joseph de Maistre, postulated that there can be no order in a state w/o him. Even a state as small as a "blog".

“Who is this inexplicable being, who, when there are so many agreeable, lucrative, honest and even honourable professions to choose among, in which a man can exercise his skill or his powers, has chosen that of torturing or killing his own kind? This head, this heart, are they made like our own? Is there not something in them that is peculiar, and alien to our nature; Myself, I have no doubt about this. He is made like us externally. He is born like all of us. But he is an extraordinary being, and it needs a special decree to bring him into existence as a member of the human family – a fiat of the creative power. He is created like a law unto himself.

“Consider what he is in the opinion of mankind, and try to conceive, if you can, how he can manage to ignore or defy this opinion. Hardly has he been assigned to his proper dwelling-place, hardly has he taken possession of it, when others remove their homes elsewhere whence they can no longer see him. In the midst of this desolation, in this sort of vacuum formed round him, he lives alone with his mate and his young, who acquaint him with the sound of the human voice: without them he would hear nothing but groans . . The gloomy signal is given; an abject servitor of justice knocks on his door to tell him that he is wanted; he goes; he arrives in a public square covered by a dense, trembling mob. A poisoner, a parricide, a man who has committed sacrilege is tossed to him: he seizes him, stretches him, ties him to a horizontal cross, he raises his arm; there is a horrible silence; there is no sound but that of bones cracking under the bars, and the shrieks of the victim. He unties him. He puts him on the wheel; the shattered limbs are entangled in the spokes; the head hangs down; the hair stands up, and the mouth gaping open like a furnace from time to time emits only a few bloodstained words to beg for death. He has finished. His heart is beating, but it is with joy: he congratulates himself, he says in his heart 'Nobody quarters as well as I.' He steps down. He holds out his bloodstained hand the justice throws him- from a distance - a few pieces of gold, which he catches through a double row of human beings standing back in horror. He sits down to table, and he eats. Then he goes to bed and sleeps. And on the next day, when he wakes, he thinks of something totally different from what he did the day before. Is he a man? Yes. God receives him in his shrines, and allows him to pray. He is not a criminal. Nevertheless no tongue dares declare that he is virtuous, that he is an honest man, that he is estimable. No moral praise seems appropriate to him, for everyone else is assumed to have relations with human beings: he has none. And yet all greatness, all power, all subordination rest on the executioner. He is the terror and the bond of human association. Remove this mysterious agent from the world, and in an instant order yields to chaos: thrones fall, society disappears. God, who has created sovereignty, has also made punishment; he has fixed the earth upon these two poles: 'for Jehovah is master of the twin poles and upon them he maketh turn the world' ... (1 Samuel 2: 8).

Obama's Resounding Victory, By The NumbersWith 97% of all precincts now reporting nationwide, here are the statistics on President-Elect Barack Obama's victory:

• Obama has just over 63 million votes, with John McCain at a little under 56 million. Obama's margin of victory, at over seven-million votes, could provide him with a very strong mandate to govern.

• In terms of percentages, Obama won the popular vote by six points, 52%-46% -- exactly where many of the final polls were showing the race going. Hopefully we will never have to hear about the Bradley Effect ever again.

• If we assume that Obama has won North Carolina, based on his small lead there with 100% of precincts reporting, and allocate any other close calls that some media outlets haven't projected yet in favor of the current vote-leader, then Obama will have won 364 electoral votes to John McCain 174 electoral votes. This is just shy of Bill Clinton's 370 votes in 1992 and 379 votes in 1996, and way ahead of what we've been used to from George W. Bush's close elections.

• According to the exit poll data, Obama won 43% of the white vote, a possible slight improvement on John Kerry's 41% in 2004. Obama won 95% of the black vote, which made up 13% of the electorate, compared to Kerry's 88% of black voters, who made up 11% of the total vote in 2004. Obama won Hispanics by a whopping 66%-32%, compared to Kerry's 53%-44% showing.

• The GOP's efforts to win Jewish voters by fear-mongering on Israel and Iran were a total failure. The exits show Obama with 78% of the Jewish vote, compared to Kerry's 74% showing in the 2004 exits. And along with Obama's victory in Florida, this represents a triumph for the Great Schlep.

Hi Evan,I agree the Anonymous option should be turned off.Obama did a little better in popular vote than GWB, it's a change for sure but no landslide. The country is center right and anything too radical will cause a backlash. "Conservatism" in some way shape or form will continue because it's core ideas do more than just feel good, they produce results. If Obama produces results, not just "change" he'll do well. If he turns out to be more about "change" than results or if he lets the pent up demand of the liberal democrats run the show then the American people will make more change. If he's smart he'll run to the center and pick his battles.

NOTE to posters: no rants or cut & pastes were needed to convey these thoughts. Try it sometime!

Great post Evan. I really need to stop reading the previous comments because they seem to make me more angry than enlightened. If the liberals had any thought provoking arguments that weren't rhetoric, I might be inclined to consider them, but as this race has gone on I have realized that the country is more divided than ever.

Simply saying:

"For those American's who's support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voice and I will be your president too"

will not bring us unity or bridge the gap, especially since his first pick for a cabinet member is a far left liberal; Ron Emmanuel. if he really meant what he said he would have made a centrist pick.

America will continue to be divided as long as moral issues on the table are up for grabs. Conservatives are always forced to compromise and Liberals always force their ideas on us.

But liberals would say the same thing about us, so we picked McCain to appease them and look where it got us! I do hope next time we4 pick our Republican nominee-we remember this. next time it has to be a strong conservative-both fiscally and morally. We lost too many people to the left because McCain refused to take a few steps to the right. Essentially he looked like and older, slightly more conservative version of Obama, but without the great oratories.

Still I am disappointed that so many evangelicals and Jews voted for him because he really doesn't share their values and they should have known better. He will not protect Israel in the most sacred sense and he will not protect family values.

I never thought I'd see the day that so many people are willing to throw Israel under the bus and support killing babies all the way up to hours before they'd be born naturally, but Obama was such a slick snake, that they ate the apple.

I don't know who will rise up between now and 2012, but it's got to be someone who can take on Obama in speech and in policy. Only time will tell, but for the next four years I will be watching and probably having to call my congressman and Senators every few days to ask them to vote down immoral bills and acts. I am not giving up. We can turn this tide if all of us are willing to work together.

As always-love you for standing up and not caring what these rude commenters think.

Nearly 50 years ago, a famous American gave a speech that advocated spreading the wealth.

In some countries, this notable stated, “a few families are fabulously wealthy, contribute far less than they should in taxes, and are indifferent to the poverty of the great masses of the people.” “A country in this situation,” he went on, “is fraught with continual instability.”

Just who made this spread-the-wealth declaration against the dangers societies invite when they let wealth concentrate? The then-president of the United States, Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Ike’s words back in 1960 created no controversy. Americans overwhelmingly shared his spread-the-wealth convictions. Societies that discourage vast accumulations of private wealth, they believed, simply work better.

The U.S. tax code, back then, reflected this consensus. Income more than $400,000 a year — that’s a bit more than $3 million today, after adjusting for inflation — faced a 91 percent tax rate.

The rich of Ike’s day, of course, exploited tax loopholes, just like today’s rich. But even after exploiting loopholes, the wealthy of the Eisenhower years still paid a hefty share of their income in taxes.

In 1955, for instance, America’s 400 highest-income taxpayers averaged about $12 million in income, in today’s dollars. They paid, after loopholes, 51.2 percent of that in tax.

Let’s put these numbers in contemporary perspective. In 2005, our 400 richest taxpayers averaged $214 million and paid federal taxes on that princely sum, after exploiting loopholes, at a mere 18.5 percent rate.

In other words, today’s rich are taking home much more in income than Ike’s rich and paying taxes at a much lower rate.

But here’s the amazing part. Our Republican presidential candidate, Sen. John McCain, sees nothing wrong. Any move to raise taxes on the rich, he tells us, would amount to “redistributing money instead of spreading opportunity.” Eisenhower, a Republican himself, would be aghast. Ike would see in our current financial meltdown proof positive that wealth, if left to concentrate, will bring on an “instability” that can endanger an entire nation.

Ike, were he around today, might even chide the target of McCain’s anti-redistributionist fury, Sen. Barack Obama, for taking too timid a tax-the-rich stance. Obama wants to raise the tax rate on America’s highest income bracket from 35 to 39.6 percent.

In the generation before Ronald Reagan’s 1980 election, Ike might point out, America’s top tax rate on the rich never dropped below 70 percent. The rich grumbled, but they survived.

Average Americans, in the meantime, didn’t just survive those tax-the-rich years. They prospered. In the quarter-century right after World War II, America’s typical family income more than doubled, and that’s after taking inflation into account.

Over the last quarter-century, by contrast, average Americans have progressed nowhere fast. Wages today, after inflation, are actually running less than wages in the early 1970s.

What’s the big difference between the years right after World War II and the last quarter-century? In the first era, we encouraged the spreading of wealth. In the second, we’ve let wealth concentrate.

Oh please please please GOP, nominate someone in 2012 who runs as even more of a wingnut than John McCain. Our electoral destruction of your bankrupt party wasn't enough for me - I want more electoral votes in 2012. Might I suggest a Palin/Joe the Plumber ticket?

The hottest post-election gossip blazing its way across the country is, as Scout Finch noted earlier, the "revelation" that Sarah Palin was in fact even more embarrassingly clueless than her empty-headed performance over the past two months had already led America and the world to believe.

Didn't know Africa was a continent. Couldn't name the member nations of NAFTA, even though they're the immediate neighbors of the United States. And, by the way, she was never shy about parroting the crap she had been programmed with about trade, and what a genius she was on the subject because she was from a state near Russia. Or something. Also.

But think about what this means, and what almost happened to this country. Frankly, the people who knew this about her and were still directly responsible for "vetting" her, putting her on the ticket, attempting to foist this idiot on the American people, and protecting her while there was still a chance (however theoretical) that she could become Vice President and possibly President of the United States ought to be arrested and tried for treason.

Joe The Welfare King by Jed L Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 09:15:04 AM PSTSo it turns out that when Plumber Joe was a child, he was on welfare, not once, but twice, and he credits it with helping his family ultimately lead a middle-class life style. He defends having received welfare by saying that he's subsequently paid into the system.

In other words, well-designed taxpayer-funded social assistance programs are fine because ultimately they will pay for themselves.

Suddenly we have Joe The Reasonable, right? Well, not exactly. Plumber Joe has got something of a tax dodging problem. In the end, he's just another typical Republican hypocrite.

I think people should continue to investigate Joe the Plumber's life and exaggerate everything they find in order to totally destroy him and his reputation beyond hope. That would prove that Obama was the right choice for president, right? Right?

November 7, 2008Retailers Report a Sales Collapse Sales at the nation’s largest retailers fell off a cliff in October, casting fresh doubt on the survival of some chains and signaling that this will probably be the weakest Christmas shopping season in decades.

The remarkable slowdown hit luxury chains that sell $5,000 designer dresses as badly as stores that offer $18 packs of underwear, suggesting that consumers at all income levels are snapping their wallets shut.

Sales at Neiman Marcus, the luxury department store, dropped nearly 28 percent in October compared with the same month last year. Sales fell 20 percent at Abercrombie & Fitch, nearly 17 percent at Saks, 16 percent at Gap and nearly that much at Nordstrom.

Consumer spending represents two-thirds of the nation’s economic activity, and analysts said the striking sales declines at retailers almost certainly portended an extended, severe recession. The reports highlighted once again the depth of the economic problems confronting President-elect Barack Obama.

Consumers are cutting their spending for many reasons, but high on the list is the weakening employment picture. Even people who still have jobs are pinching pennies as they hear of layoffs among friends and family. Unemployment has hit 6.1 percent, and a new jobs report due Friday is expected to show further deterioration.

“I’m much poorer than I’ve ever been,” said her friend, Kate Pistone, also an actress, who makes ends meet by working at a restaurant. Sales there have been declining. “I made $5 last night,” she said.

Analysts who spend time prowling the nation’s stores to track trends say that consumers are simply shell-shocked by all the grim financial news.

“You walk the mall and consumers look like zombies,” said Mr. Morris of Wachovia, after visiting a mall last week. “They’re there in person, but not in spirit.”

A few retailers have strong balance sheets, but many do not, and with credit hard to find they can ill afford a disastrous Christmas season. Analysts said they expected a new wave of bankruptcies after the first of the year.

US jobless rate rises to highest level since 1994

1.2 MILLION JOBS LOST IN FIRST TEN MONTHS of 2008!!

The US unemployment rate rose to its highest level since 1994 in October, the government said Friday, reaching 6.5 percent as the world's largest economy shed jobs amid the credit squeeze and downturn.

The US Bureau of Labor Statistics said 240,000 jobs had been cut in October, the 10th straight month of job losses, and it revised sharply higher figures for August and September.

These revisions -- 127,000 and 284,000 jobs were lost in August and September rather than the 73,000 and 159,000 estimated a month ago -- helped push up the unemployment rate.

The latest data confirm the severity of the economic downturn underway in the United States where months of turmoil on stock markets, tightening of credit and record-low consumer confidence have taken their toll.

"Employment has fallen by 1.2 million in the first 10 months," a statement from the bureau said.

The figures also underline the challenge for incoming president Barack Obama, who was to meet Friday with his economic team before giving his first post-election news conference.

BTW -- My prediction that McCain would win was closer to the actual final numbers than the vast majority of news organizations and polling firms. If I was off by four points, they were off by as many as 8 or more.

Also of interest is that the ones that were the MOST wrong -- with all of their machinery and investigative powers, etc. were the leftist news outlets. So Rasmussen was damn close while six of the eight most radically wrong (pro-Obama) were Time and Newsweek and CBS and NBC, etc. Working on behalf of Obama? Chris Matthews of NBC now says its his JOB to work as propagandist for Dear Leader.

As the implosion of the defeated Republican campaign continued yesterday, the landscape of American conservatism was dotted with signs that these were very strange times indeed.

Rush Limbaugh, behemoth of rightwing radio, took to the airwaves to declare war on two enemies: Barack Obama and the Republican party. Bloggers at FreeRepublic.com, an internet hub for conservatives, announced a boycott of Fox News and John McCain's aides fell over one another to leak embarrassing details about the campaign to the press.

"Ladies and gentlemen, it is worse than I thought," Limbaugh told listeners. "What the Republican party, led by disgruntled and failed McCain staffers, is trying to do to Sarah Palin, is unconscionable ... There are country-club, blue-blood ... Republicans who want nothing to do with a firebrand conservative [who] can fire up people." He added: "We're going to be taking on two things here [over] the next four years: Obama, and our own party establishment."